Your boy David Frum has a post about the lack of a “federalist” approach in both opponents and deponents (sayeth not) of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He writes, “For the sake of clarity, at least, we should understand what the senators who vote “no” are in fact voting for. They are not voting for federalism. There are no federalists in this debate.”

Better men than me can hope to fathom Frum’s reasoning. As far as this simple country boy can tell, the Federal Marriage Amendment is perfectly consistent with federalism. It states,

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Now my humble legal mind may be mistaken, but as far as I can tell this in no way prevents any state from having gay marriage (though admittedly, the minds of federal judges interpreting the Constitution move in mysterious ways). All it does is make it clear that the federal Constitution does not require a state to recognize a sister state’s gay marriage stuff.Okay, well, maybe the line about “nor the constitution of any State” is a bit non-federalist. But given the state courts’ propensity to say that state constitutions have to follow the federal standards, the logic of this phrase is understandable. In any event, it does not prevent a state from legislating in favor of gay marriage.

So as far as Daddy can tell (and Daddy is perspicacious on occasion), the opponents are indeed anti-federalist but the deponents–proponents, whatever–are consistent with federalism.

The Best of Stephan Kinsella